site banner
ZorbaTHut  2yr ago (text post)   31617 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 17, 2022

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

16
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The problem is that just because an event is rare, it can still be high-impact when it does occur.

I tend to hate that the Blue Tribe talking point states that "WIDESPREAD" voter fraud is a myth.

Because it doesn't have to be 'widespread' to have a significant effect on outcomes. Even accounting for how ambiguous that term is. If 50,000 fraudulent votes are cast in one precinct, that might not count since it wasn't taking place elsewhere?

And the rarity of it occurring in the past is not sufficient evidence that it won't be widespread in the future, if conditions change.

Of course, the Dems spent years alleging Russian 'interference' with the 2016 election despite no direct evidence, so I also don't think they've demonstrated good faith on the issue anyway.

  1. Surely "widespread" here means "significant"

  2. Of course there is evidence of Russian attempts to influence the 2016 election.

How many votes were flipped, added, or otherwise how was the actual outcome impacted by Russian interference?

No clue. Perhaps not at all, though of course some states were so close that even a small change might have been significant. But I did say only that there is evidence of attempts to influence the election. That seems pretty clear.

So was it or was it not appropriate for Democrats to claim Russia helped Trump win the election?

Especially one year+ after the fact?

Was that backed by the evidence or not?

If you are asking whether it is appropriate for anyone to intimate that the election was not legitimate: No. Absent something like hacked software or massive ballot box stuffing which is so extreme that it is reasonable to conclude that the vote count did not reflect how actual voters actually voted, it is not appropriate for anyone to claim that an election is not legitimate. So, eg, it is inappropriate to claim that the 2000 Bush victory was illegitimate (it is also unreasonable to make that claim, but that is a topic for another post).

If you are asking whether is it is reasonable to claim that Clinton would have won, absent the Russian efforts, let’s do the math. The closest states that Trump won were Michigan (0.3% margin); Wisconsin (1% margin); and Pennsylvania (1.2% margin). Had Clinton won all three, she would have won the election. So, the question becomes: Is it reasonable to claim that the Russian efforts caused 0.6% +1 of voters to switch from Clinton to Trump (half the largest margin, plus 1)? Based on my understanding of the poli sci literature, I am personally skeptical that campaigning, etc, have much of an effect on voters. And, it is my understanding that the volume of Russian intervention was, in the grand scheme of things, not all that large. So, I, personally, would not make that claim. Nevertheless, there are a lot of unknowns in this area, and given that the margins were so small, it seems to me that reasonable minds might differ on this question, so, no, it is not completely unreasonable to claim that Clinton would have won, absent the Russian efforts.

Is it reasonable to intimate that the election's results are correct, but that Trump would have won had the processes around elections not illegally been changed in various states?

It is possibly reasonable, depending on data on who voted, where, whether those people would have voted if the processes had not been changed, etc.

However, per the first part of my previous response, it is not appropriate to intimate that Biden's election was illegitimate as a result.

From my perspective, the forced changes to how the elections were conducted, in violation of the laws governing those elections in states, is enough on its own to introduce intolerable ambiguity into the results.

Interference versus influence.

Whats the difference?

I don't understand your question.

Because it doesn't have to be 'widespread' to have a significant effect on outcomes. Even accounting for how ambiguous that term is. If 50,000 fraudulent votes are cast in one precinct, that might not count since it wasn't taking place elsewhere?

I am not aware of anyone pointing out 50 fraudulent votes within a single district, let alone 50,000. If something like 50,000 in a single district was something that had actually been shown to have happened, that argument would be a lot more relevant. Particularly if those 50,000 fraudulent votes came from individual people who should not have been allowed to vote individually deciding to vote.

Basically my issue with this is the type of fraudulent vote they're going after here isn't the type of fraud that I would expect to swing elections.

Of course, the Dems spent years alleging Russian 'interference' with the 2016 election despite no direct evidence, so I also don't think they've demonstrated good faith on the issue anyway.

Agreed.

Honestly I feel like all the talk of fraud is a distraction from things that are legal but have significant effects on voter turnout (e.g. polling place locations, canvassing, changing laws around mail-in ballots, etc).

Honestly I feel like all the talk of fraud is a distraction from things that are legal but have significant effects on voter turnout (e.g. polling place locations, canvassing, changing laws around mail-in ballots, etc).

To expand this point, a great number of things were done along these lines in 2020 that were not legal, and yet were not fraud either, e.g. officials changing rules regarding mail-in ballots without the legal authority to do so.

Cool, but I am not sure why this was a response to me.

Because you stated that Republican Commissions to find fraud tend not to find fraud.

Which is not really proof that we shouldn't place measures against fraud in place, or that Republicans are wrong to worry about it, even if they are obnoxious in their arguments.

Republican Commissions to find fraud

The guy I responded to said that Republicans were "unable to perform any investigation into it for 30+ years."

There are absolutely investigations into fraud. Your very sentence implies their existence!

I do NOT think that, as many Democrats say, that "looking for fraud and not finding any means we can stop looking."

But I also do NOT think that "if we look for fraud and and do not find enough to flip an election, that means we were just not permitted to investigate hard enough."

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats